What are they specifically arguing about?
From your link: “…months of talks that deadlocked over the union’s demands for a greater share of DVD and Internet revenues.”
So…money. Specifically, the writers want more of it and the producers don’t want to give it to them.
Screenwriters have always faced a battle for proper recognition. I feel they’re every bit as important as the directors, but how many can you name off the top of your head like you can directors? Kudos to Ebert for always listing the name of the screenwriter in the box along with cast and director.
[QUOTE=Writer’s Guild of America]
WGA FAQ Sheet
**What is the dispute between writers and producers about? **
The Writers Guild has for many years attempted to engage the companies who employ writers in a serious conversation regarding fair compensation for use of our work in the new media (which refers to all digital delivery systems: internet, cell-phones, etc.). During those years, Internet streaming became commonplace, the word webisode appeared in dictionaries, and Tivo-like delivery systems started to explore their full potential with the ultimate goal of one day replacing DVD’s.
In addition, the Guild has also attempted to right the unfair labor practices of non-union companies who exploit writers on the so-called “reality” shows (that actually involve a lot of writing, some of which is done by WGA members), interventions that bore fruit in hearings before the National Labor Relations Board, who ruled in the Guild’s favor. They have tried to extend to those writers a more secure future under a WGA contract.
During the latest contract negotiations, the AMPTP steadfastly refused to address any of these issues: including the setting of minimum compensation practices and benefits, even though these minimums and benefits in traditional television and theatrical movies have assured decades of peace and prosperity for the studios and the networks.
Every businessman knows that once a business model is in place, it is extremely difficult to change. The WGA is only the first of the major guilds to ask that their members be fairly included in that new business model. While the AMPTP stalled for years, the future arrived on all of our doorsteps. It must be dealt with…now.
Couldn’t the WGA have settled this without a work stoppage? The AMPTP says it has been ready to negotiate all along.
The producers made this strike inevitable, not the writers. In fact, their negotiators seemed determined to provoke a work stoppage.
AMPTP negotiators proposed more than 170 million dollars in cuts to the writers’ existing deferred payment schedules – residuals. And when they removed a few of these insulting proposals at the eleventh hour, they seemed to think their negotiating was finished…when it point of fact, it never started. Not one single issue that writers deem important was ever addressed.
I’ve heard that working writers don’t support the WGA strike, which is driven by the large percentage of unemployed members in the Guild.
The WGA Negotiating Committee is comprised of many successful working writers, and the vast majority of working WGA members supports this work action.
For a year leading up to the current contract negotiations, working writers of theatrical movies, television drama and comedy, game shows, documentaries and the so-called “reality” shows came together in living rooms across the Southland and across the nation as part of the Writers Guild Outreach Program. They met with Guild officers and the chief negotiator. They listened; they gave their input, and their support.
Many working writers have already watched their shows go out over the Internet with no fair and reasonable compensation agreement in place. Without set minimums, pension and health coverage, they fear that their livelihoods will be seriously undermined. They look at the non-union reality shows–where writers work long hours with no overtime compensation, no pension or health benefits, and no chance to share in any deferred payment package–and see the future the AMPTP has in mind for them.
Working writers envision another, brighter future. They know that the disappearance of the DVD market is inevitable, but they’re excited by the tremendous opportunities for fairly compensated employment in the new media, where series and movies may soon be created solely for the Internet.
I’ve read that restaurant workers, equipment rental firms, limousine drivers, not to mention thousands of workers in the film and television industry, will be hurt by the Writers’ strike. How can writers be so heartless?
Writers read these articles in the newspapers, too, and it does bother them. But they also note the irony that a writers’ strike seems to be the only time they’re given credit as one of the main support pillars of a 30 billion dollar industry: a fact their employers often seem to forget.
If writers lose access to the income streams and the benefit packages that have kept them working here, many will leave the industry, and Southern California: to be followed by working class actors and directors, who will see their own hopes for the future evaporate if the industry gets its way in denying residuals for work in new media..
If that happens, the impact on Southern California’s economy will be devastating.
I’ve heard that Hollywood writers are rich? How wealthy are they?
Here are a few statistics to consider:
• 48% of the WGA membership is currently unemployed. That means, at any given time, nearly half of all writers DO NOT EARN ANY MONEY AT ALL.
During periods of unemployment, many members depend on the residuals they receive for previously produced work. This is why it is absolutely essential that writers receive fair and just compensation for the use and re-use of their work on the Internet. In the future, it is possible that downloads of writers’ work via the Internet will become the sole source of residuals.
• According to the WGA 2007 Annual Report of the 52% of members who ARE working, one quarter earn less than $37,700 a year.
• The MEDIAN income of ALL members of the Writers Guild is only $5,000.
But of course that doesn’t tell the whole story. As with any group of professionals, a bell curve graph of all working writers would show the “working poor” on one end, the vast “middle class” in and around the bulging center, and the financially successful writers (who, by creating series or writing hit films, thereby create many thousands of jobs) on the other end. The only thing extraordinary about this group of professionals is that they are ALL members of one union, and proud of it.
I read in Variety that the WGA has alienated its sister unions. Is this true?
It’s said that generals are often still fighting the last war, not the one they’re currently engaged in. This also applies to journalists who haul out facts that may have been true in the past, but are now demonstrably false.
During this most recent contract dispute, SAG leadership has expressed continuous support for the Writers’ Guilds efforts to secure a fair contract. The president of SAG read a strong letter of support from their board at the WGA’s General Meeting. Their members are aware that, historically, employers try to pick off, then weaken—and if possible, destroy—one union at a time.
The DGA, although comprised of assistant directors and production managers as well as directors, continues to express interest in the outcome of our work action, knowing they’ll soon be sitting across the table from the AMPTP. If producers and studios become emboldened by our prospective defeat, they’ll demand draconian rollbacks from Directors Guild members as well.
Concerned members in both of these guilds know that what we gain for ourselves, we gain for them. But they’re also aware that if we lose the fight over issues of mutual importance, the also stand to lose…perhaps forever.
The Teamsters strongly support us. Although they have no immediate interest in the specifics of our contract dispute, they know that a receding tide strands all boats.
Writers consider themselves just one part of an amazing community made up of artisans, craftsman, executives and producers. We have forged a powerful alliance with other unions, who see our efforts as a positive step toward maintaining the healthy, stable and robust industry it’s many stakeholders enjoy.
Among those contributing to this FAQ were Kevin Droney, Stan Chervin, Joe Forte, and David Misch.
[/QUOTE]
The writers of this are WGA strike captains. More info available at wga.org–obviously, that is the writer’s side. Probably there’s something available on AMPTP’s side, too.
Personally, I feel for the writers. When the current deal was made about residuals and royalties for things like re-selling movies and TV shows for home use, it was a MUCH smaller market than it is today, especially for TV shows. How many TV shows were ever out on VHS? Only a handful compared to DVD, and then most of the time it was just a “selection” of the best episodes, not entire seasons. And no compensation for sale through things like iTunes, or from streaming video? That seems like a lot of BS to me.
Did they have to strike? I dunno, since I have no idea what was going on in those negotiations, but if WGA is telling the truth that the AMPTP is flat out refusing to change the current structure at all, then the AMPTP sounds like a bunch of douchebags and a strike might have been necessary.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Screenwriters have always faced a battle for proper recognition. I feel they’re every bit as important as the directors, …
[/QUOTE]
In my opinion, the wardrobe department and cameramen are also as important as the above.
I am NOT trying to sarcastically say that the screenwriters should lose this fight. I am saying that EVERYONE who worked on a project should get a share of the residuals. I see no difference between the directors, actors, and sound crew. Either they all get, or no one gets.
The only people who I see as in a different class would be the investors who put up the money for the project. As owners of the property, they could get residuals even if no one else does.
Where’s my logical error?
[QUOTE=Keeve]
I am saying that EVERYONE who worked on a project should get a share of the residuals. I see no difference between the directors, actors, and sound crew. Either they all get, or no one gets.
[/QUOTE]
The directors, the actors, and the other members of the crew have their own unions and their own contracts with their own terms. If they’re not happy with the deal they’re getting, they’re free to strike just as the writers are.
There was a good op-ed type piece by a writer in The Toronto Star last week. It starts as follows:
The really big deal here (in my opinion) is the 0 residuals for online content.
I’m sure the writers would love to see more of a return on DVD sales, but they no doubt realize that DVDs and other printed home media, while huge now, are pretty much going to be subsumed by online distribution. If they don’t get an agreement in place on online distribution before it really takes off, they’re going to be totally screwed.
Personally, I’ve got fairly little sympathy for the studios on this one. The difference between broadcasting over radio waves and streaming video from a website should not be a substantive one. A twist on distribution technology should not completely invalidate the concept of residuals. I would guess that whatever contract they settle on, it’s going to include a clause about any potential future distribution method as yet undiscovered, so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. 80 years from now, when Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader is being beamed directly into our brains (or lack thereof), the writers will get their cut.
I’m taking my information from this video one member of the WGA made to explain their fight, which my girlfriend, who is a screenwriter, sent me.
[QUOTE=Keeve]
In my opinion, the wardrobe department and cameramen are also as important as the above.
I am NOT trying to sarcastically say that the screenwriters should lose this fight. I am saying that EVERYONE who worked on a project should get a share of the residuals. I see no difference between the directors, actors, and sound crew. Either they all get, or no one gets.
[/quote]
I think we have to decide whether writing, directing, rigging a set, lighting a set, being a gopher on a set, etc., entitle one to a share of the profits forever or not.
In contrast, some things are “works for hire” where you are paid to perform a task, whereupon the person who paid you becomes the owner of the product you contributed to. This owner subsequently can sell, rent, or license the product as he sees fit.
So why are some tasks in the world “royalty” tasks and others “for hire”? Is there any inherent reason or is it just who can scream the loudest?
The really really big deal here is that of all the artists’ unions the writers go first.
The WGA contract expired on 31-October. The SAG and DGA (actors and directors respectively) will follow in the next few months. Whenever it’s time to renegotiate contracts, the one that gets renegotiated first will set the tone for those that come later. The writers know that they are breaking the trail for the other unions, especially on the “new media” online-content question, and that’s why you’re seeing a ton of actors joining the writers on the picket lines: either walking with them in their spare time, or actively refusing to cross the lines, or just sending support packages (food mostly) out to the marchers.
In a real sense, the writers are striking for everybody, because the online media question is so significant across the board. And that, correspondingly, is why the studios/owners are responding with such a hard line: If they surrender this to the writers, they will be surrendering it to the actors and directors as well.
To answer beyond this would exceed the boundaries of the GQ forum.
[QUOTE=Keeve]
In my opinion, the wardrobe department and cameramen are also as important as the above.
[/QUOTE]
We shall have to agree to disagree on this point.
[QUOTE=Keeve]
Where’s my logical error?
[/QUOTE]
You’re ignoring supply and demand.
There are far fewer people with the skills to do directing, acting, and writing and they are less interchangeable. They can demand more because of these skills.
It is no different in any industry with stars and behind-the-scenes technicians. You can’t run a baseball team without a manager, coaches, trainers, doctors, bat boys, equipment handlers, and turf specialists, but virtually all the starting players will get far more money and other perks. You can’t have fewer people than nine on the field, but they won’t all get the same money either.
You can’t run a university without… You can’t run a hospital without…
Doesn’t matter what the field is. As long as we live under capitalism, there isn’t even a moral question about the relativity of the system.
[QUOTE=Keeve]
I am NOT trying to sarcastically say that the screenwriters should lose this fight. I am saying that EVERYONE who worked on a project should get a share of the residuals. I see no difference between the directors, actors, and sound crew. Either they all get, or no one gets.
The only people who I see as in a different class would be the investors who put up the money for the project. As owners of the property, they could get residuals even if no one else does.
Where’s my logical error?
[/QUOTE]
I kind of question the need for residuals in the first place. Well, the need exists because the union exhorted it and at some point in the past the owners capitulated and now we have this residuals system. But where’s the fundamental need? The vast majority of people in this country get paid for the amount of time they spend at work (even when on the SDMB not producing anything). Perhaps they should be just arguing for a living wage if they’re concerned about income.
[QUOTE=Balthisar]
I kind of question the need for residuals in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the thing: Every movie (or TV show or whatever) is a gamble. You have no idea, before you sink thirty million or a hundred and thirty million into it, whether anybody’s going to see it. Maybe it’ll be a huge bomb; maybe it’ll be a huge hit. Maybe it’ll make a ton of money in the short term and then vanish. Maybe it’ll do okay in the short term, but then hang on as a long-term profit center. There’s no way to know.
The residuals system is intended to cope with all situations: Give the artists a share of the earnings, in perpetuity. That’s really all it means.
If you tried to pay everybody up front, you’d have to try to predict what a movie would eventually earn. And since nobody thinks they’re making a loser (or they’d never get started), the assumption is that the movie will be profitable, meaning everybody gets paid a lot more up front, which increases the startup costs for a film considerably, which means it becomes prohibitive to make any movie at all.
The residuals system allows fair compensation to be temporarily deferred, removed from the startup costs and distributed over the saleable life of a film (or TV show or commercial or whatever).
Some math for you (figures taken from various trade articles discussing the strike): Let’s say you have a popular DVD. Sells ten million copies at twenty bucks a pop. Under the current system, each writer’s cut of the $200 million DVD gross: $80K. Maybe that all happens the first year, for a big shallow blockbuster from which the bloom quickly fades (say, Pearl Harbor). Maybe it happens over ten years if it’s a lower-key critical hit with strong word of mouth (say, Shawshank Redemption). Or, in the TV world, compare a flash-in-the-pan hit to one that still sells a decent number of DVDs years later. Point is, the schedule of earnings is irrelevant; each writer’s cut of the long-term earnings is $80K (and remember, major movies can have many writers, even dozens). Whether or not this is adequate is a matter of opinion, and outside the bounds of this forum. But that, presuming the coverage can be trusted, is the situation.
What’s better, paying the writers more up front, increasing each one’s salary by that assumed $80K or some other value, and making the movie more expensive to make right off the bat (ten writers adds almost a million dollars)? or tying the writers’ compensation to the movie’s earnings over time, which keeps the initial cost of production affordable, causes the artists’ wages to reflect the success of the film, and yet permits fair compensation for all over the long term? or a third option, paying the writers and other artists peanuts and letting the moguls rake in every last penny for themselves, which is the way things worked under the old-style studio system? Again, answering that is not GQ material. But the fact that that question was debated a few decades ago is a GQ answer to your question about why the residuals system exists at all.
Here are the writers of The Office explaining their strike
YouTube Video – http://halaro.com/under.php?id=827
[QUOTE=Balthisar]
I kind of question the need for residuals in the first place. Well, the need exists because the union exhorted it and at some point in the past the owners capitulated and now we have this residuals system. But where’s the fundamental need? The vast majority of people in this country get paid for the amount of time they spend at work (even when on the SDMB not producing anything). Perhaps they should be just arguing for a living wage if they’re concerned about income.
[/QUOTE]
Actually in the past 25 years a residual like payment system has become more common outside the arts. In jobs where there is some uncertainty about company success, like in the computer industry, we increasingly have some of our salary in the form of bonuses, which vary depending on how well the company does. This has been called “at-risk” pay. Stock options, though not directly salary related, are another form of a gamble.
There is also a difference in the amount of down time expected. Most of us get a guaranteed 40 hours a week of work. Nothing is guaranteed in acting or writing. What is a living wage if the number of hours worked per year is so uncertain?
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
You’re ignoring supply and demand.
There are far fewer people with the skills to do directing, acting, and writing and they are less interchangeable. They can demand more because of these skills.
It is no different in any industry with stars and behind-the-scenes technicians. You can’t run a baseball team without a manager, coaches, trainers, doctors, bat boys, equipment handlers, and turf specialists, but virtually all the starting players will get far more money and other perks. You can’t have fewer people than nine on the field, but they won’t all get the same money either.
[/QUOTE]
Supply in acting, writing and directing is controlled to a certain extent by quality. For an actor, access to casting directors is controlled by agents, who pre-screen. Access to jobs is controlled by casting directors. It is not hard to get into the business given that you are in the right place to get to auditions and you have the right skills.
Access to craft jobs is controlled by the unions, which limit membership to reduce supply. They may not get residuals, but pretty much any craft union member can work any job, so the demand is better balanced than it is for actors. So those jobs are more like traditional ones, which might explain the lack of residuals.
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
The really big deal here (in my opinion) is the 0 residuals for online content.
I’m sure the writers would love to see more of a return on DVD sales, but they no doubt realize that DVDs and other printed home media, while huge now, are pretty much going to be subsumed by online distribution. If they don’t get an agreement in place on online distribution before it really takes off, they’re going to be totally screwed.
[/QUOTE]
From what I’ve read, the writers feel they got ripped off on DVD residuals, and don’t want it to happen again. You may be right about DVDs going away, but at the moment they make tons of money for the studios.
It’s not like building a car where you build one product, sell it once, and then build another. A book, or a television show, or a movie can be copied over and over again and continue to be sold to new people for years after it’s first created. The writers feel that as the people who were the original creators of the work they should receive some share of the revenue from the sale of these copies.
Actually it was videotape sales they took a bad deal on. And they want to get a better agreement on DVD sales and online distribution.
When video sales first started, the studios were able to argue that it was a brand new market and nobody could predict how successful it would be. The studios might have invested a lot of money into making videotapes and then found that the public had no interest in paying to buy or rent them. So the writers agreed to a very low royalty rate from video sales.
Obviously, video sales were not a failure. It opened up a whole new major market for selling movies and TV shows and a huge new source of revenue. And now DVDs are the main product in this market. The studios are arguing that DVDs are just like videotapes so the old royalty rates should carry over. But the writers are arguing that DVDs are not a risk like videotapes were because everyone now knows that people will buy and rent movies. So the studios aren’t entitled to get a special deal for taking a risk when no actual risk exists.
The internet market is still an open question. It might take off and it might not. So the studios are trying to use the old argument that they should get a favorable deal so they can justify trying to open up a new market. The writers are saying that they got burned once and they’re not going to get fooled again. The studios are trying to claim that there’s no money to be had in internet distribution so it’s ridiculous for writers to be asking for royalties when there’s no revenue. The writers say “Fine, then give us a 10% share of revenues in writing, if what you’re saying is true then giving us ten percent of nothing will cost you nothing.” The studios say “We can’t do that. Because there’s exists a remote possibility that at some future point there might in fact be a dollar or two in revenues.” And the writers say “Yeah, that’s what we thought. You know the money’s going to be coming in. And we want a piece of it.” And so it goes.